-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
HR WP Thoughts (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Torview
- Start date
Torview
Well-known member
Ok, am I the only one that dismissed any observations after Torview's first sentence?
Everything looks good after a fine pint of Tribute!
Just joking my friend.
It was a choice of Tribute or Doom Bar, a harder choice than SV or HT !
bh46118
Well-known member
This little if ever mentioned 2008 review eludes to the qualities I see in the Minox. http://www.binomania.it/wordpress/?p=347 At least I think that's what I read with the translator. :-O Basically, everything else looks a little soft and dull in comparison.
bh46118
Well-known member
One thing that my Minox doesn't do well is night lights and other light sources at night. Looking at them produces several razor sharp spikes or flares of light.
John Dracon
John Dracon
Bh461...'s reference to the handling of the Minox in the Biomania article is a subtle aspect not fully appreciated by many users. Roofs put the holder at a slight mechanical
disadvantage when the arms or elbows are not supported. Birders often scan or look while standing, lifting their binoculars up and down repeatedly Porros place the hands further apart, and the slight spreading of the arms helps the shoulders deal with the fatigue that is inherent holding up the arms for more than a few seconds. John
disadvantage when the arms or elbows are not supported. Birders often scan or look while standing, lifting their binoculars up and down repeatedly Porros place the hands further apart, and the slight spreading of the arms helps the shoulders deal with the fatigue that is inherent holding up the arms for more than a few seconds. John
bh46118
Well-known member
Other than the human eye, I haven't any way to quantify the ability of an optic to resolve detail. I would think that there has to be an upper limit though, and I believe this family of binoculars would possibly be close to that limit. Then again, I could be full of hooey. :eat:
I enjoy my HRWP 8x42 when on "serious" birding outings (much of my use of bins is on longish walks/hikes where a little less weight is desired). They are my first choice for any hide work, where they display a "feature" that I haven't seen in any other bin.
It has been mentioned in this forum before, that the outer edge of the field of view appears to have a different focus point than that of the sweet-spot. As it happens, the focus is closer at the edge. This can give a wonderful view out of the hide (particularly over flat terrain, as in wetlands) of near infinite DOF.
Other bins that I have tried, my SRGA 8x32 porros for example are simply out of focus at the outer 10-15% and can never be focussed.
Is the effect in the HRWP related to the rolling ball effect?
Dave
It has been mentioned in this forum before, that the outer edge of the field of view appears to have a different focus point than that of the sweet-spot. As it happens, the focus is closer at the edge. This can give a wonderful view out of the hide (particularly over flat terrain, as in wetlands) of near infinite DOF.
Other bins that I have tried, my SRGA 8x32 porros for example are simply out of focus at the outer 10-15% and can never be focussed.
Is the effect in the HRWP related to the rolling ball effect?
Dave
Dave,
I don't know the optical configuration of the HRWP or the other Opticron models, but it's likely the HRWP has fewer lens elements in the ocular than some of the flatter field designs. Simple optics tend to have more field curvature than some of the more complex. Less glass means higher transmission and better contrast if all else is equal. The total internal reflection of the porro prisms of course helps as well. Part of the reason why the HRWP impresses.
On balance, I generally prefer higher field curvature in lower magnifications for the reason you mention.
David
I don't know the optical configuration of the HRWP or the other Opticron models, but it's likely the HRWP has fewer lens elements in the ocular than some of the flatter field designs. Simple optics tend to have more field curvature than some of the more complex. Less glass means higher transmission and better contrast if all else is equal. The total internal reflection of the porro prisms of course helps as well. Part of the reason why the HRWP impresses.
On balance, I generally prefer higher field curvature in lower magnifications for the reason you mention.
David
Last edited:
Ok, am I the only one that dismissed any observations after Torview's first sentence?
Everything looks good after a fine pint of Tribute!
Just joking my friend.
Now you and I have the same successful approach to life:
Enjoy what's good, exclamation point...!! and as for the bad stuff, enjoy what's good!
What's good for me is I'm in the process of acquiring via the noble, highly admired and esteemed Ebay a pair of demo Opticron HR WP 8x42s, for a couple hundred greenbacks (British money isn't green right?), complete with warranty card. Unfortunately the rainguard and caps are missing and will cost me an extra $27 but that's OK. Free shipping, warranty card. I can't wait! $227 for what this and other threads claim gets you into real optical seriousness...........well that's worth a pint (of vodka....just kidding.....vodka and Kahlua).
The birdies out here in the boonies will have no further secrets.
PS - Minox discontinued their version in 2009 I think. Was surprised to see Opticron still making theirs here in 11/17. Good, because I get the warranty card with these demos. No questions asked for 5 years, and manufacturer defects for another 15, follows the binocs with any resale. Did a lot of research to find some quality binocs this poor boy can afford, I feel the work paid off, thanks to this forum.
